It makes no sense to go about advocating or tolerating an existing system without knowing exactly what it seeks to accomplish and how well it succeeds at accomplishing it. That said, what exactly is the point of voting? Is it so that the government has a leash or is it so that the people have a hand in directing their country's future? I'm sure you can make a case for either, but that would be irrelevant. Voting fails under both objectives.

When you have a pool of 100,000,000+ of the electorate voting for president then who's actually voting for president? Who's actually directing the future of the country? The outcome of the popular vote is nothing but an arbitrary amalgamation of voices that happened to tip in favor of one name. Whether you vote or don't vote the influence of your opinion is equal. So really you're changing and contributing to nothing.

The collective voice of the people is not a voice at all. It has no rational authority because it is a random outburst wholly dependent upon the fickle nature of uninformed citizens. Then you throw in the party system which develops a science out of it all, constructing variables and strategies that increase the likelihood that the die will fall in their favor! All the while, each of us believes we're actually in charge of the government. It's brilliantly deceptive this process! No one chooses who will be President of the United States except the 2 people running for president. Those two individuals are engaged in a private match of chess, the faceless marionette we call the American electoral body their pieces,....playing to see who is the worthier tactician.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/23/2012 8:17:12 PM, 000ike wrote:It makes no sense to go about advocating or tolerating an existing system without knowing exactly what it seeks to accomplish and how well it succeeds at accomplishing it. That said, what exactly is the point of voting? Is it so that the government has a leash or is it so that the people have a hand in directing their country's future? I'm sure you can make a case for either, but that would be irrelevant. Voting fails under both objectives.

When you have a pool of 100,000,000+ of the electorate voting for president then who's actually voting for president? Who's actually directing the future of the country? The outcome of the popular vote is nothing but an arbitrary amalgamation of voices that happened to tip in favor of one name. Whether you vote or don't vote the influence of your opinion is equal. So really you're changing and contributing to nothing.

The collective voice of the people is not a voice at all. It has no rational authority because it is a random outburst wholly dependent upon the fickle nature of uninformed citizens. Then you throw in the party system which develops a science out of it all, constructing variables and strategies that increase the likelihood that the die will fall in their favor! All the while, each of us believes we're actually in charge of the government. It's brilliantly deceptive this process! No one chooses who will be President of the United States except the 2 people running for president. Those two individuals are engaged in a private match of chess, the faceless marionette we call the American electoral body their pieces,....playing to see who is the worthier tactician.

"The collective voice of the people is not a voice at all. It has no rational authority because it is a random outburst wholly dependent upon the fickle nature of uninformed citizens."

That is it in a nut shell. People should have to pass a comprehensive test covering economics, history and the constitution before they should be given the privilege to vote. What could be more harmful to a country and it's govts ability to conduct it'snecessary and legitimate functions if people vote for somebody simply because they think they are cool or for the color of their skin. I despise this kind of voter on a level that cant be described and remain civil. They ruin everything for those who are informed and understand the constitution economics and the legitimate functions of govt. Yes voting is a waste of time as long as voters such as the ones I described are allowed to vote.

It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%

At 8/23/2012 8:17:12 PM, 000ike wrote:It makes no sense to go about advocating or tolerating an existing system without knowing exactly what it seeks to accomplish and how well it succeeds at accomplishing it. That said, what exactly is the point of voting?....

You have given the argument for a ruling elite, exactly as presented in North Korea and other totalitarian states. Leftists believe at the people should willingly cede power to the ruling elite, who are smart people and will do a better job of caring for them then ey can for themselves. We now have 33% of the country getting welfare payments, and half getting government checks of some kind. Once people are dependent, they will vote ever-increasing benefits for themselves, until the economy is like North Korea as well.

It is a flaw in democracy but it's not inevitable. The point of voting is to move the country in a new direction. Refusing to participate unless you get exactly what you want immediately is childish, but it is your free choice. You are also free to leave and go where ever you want. That's important too.

At 8/23/2012 8:17:12 PM, 000ike wrote:It makes no sense to go about advocating or tolerating an existing system without knowing exactly what it seeks to accomplish and how well it succeeds at accomplishing it. That said, what exactly is the point of voting?....

You have given the argument for a ruling elite, exactly as presented in North Korea and other totalitarian states. Leftists believe at the people should willingly cede power to the ruling elite, who are smart people and will do a better job of caring for them then ey can for themselves. We now have 33% of the country getting welfare payments, and half getting government checks of some kind. Once people are dependent, they will vote ever-increasing benefits for themselves, until the economy is like North Korea as well.

It is a flaw in democracy but it's not inevitable. The point of voting is to move the country in a new direction. Refusing to participate unless you get exactly what you want immediately is childish, but it is your free choice. You are also free to leave and go where ever you want. That's important too.

Let Ike speak for himself, if that's what he's saying.

In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

At 8/23/2012 8:17:12 PM, 000ike wrote:It makes no sense to go about advocating or tolerating an existing system without knowing exactly what it seeks to accomplish and how well it succeeds at accomplishing it. That said, what exactly is the point of voting?....

You have given the argument for a ruling elite, exactly as presented in North Korea and other totalitarian states. Leftists believe at the people should willingly cede power to the ruling elite, who are smart people and will do a better job of caring for them then ey can for themselves. We now have 33% of the country getting welfare payments, and half getting government checks of some kind. Once people are dependent, they will vote ever-increasing benefits for themselves, until the economy is like North Korea as well.

No, wrong.

It is a flaw in democracy but it's not inevitable. The point of voting is to move the country in a new direction. Refusing to participate unless you get exactly what you want immediately is childish, but it is your free choice. You are also free to leave and go where ever you want. That's important too.

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

Not really. I mean, Sparta is pretty much THE extreme when it comes to the ancient world...I was referring to European monarchies like the 12th-18th centuries anyway. I dont really see where you're drawing your conclusion from....at all. Just look at what democracy has done to justice man. The idea of justice and law as universal principles has literally disappeared, law is government issued paper that can change at any moment. Now crimes are considered crimes against the state not the individual. Which is stupid. Governments now can and do take away "rights"randomly because they can. Back in the day, the prevailing view was that all rights stood or fell together--that is, if the king decides to go around violating peoples rights illegitimately his right to his throne can be disregarded. Since democratic rulers are elected by the people they have legitimacy to basically do whatever they want, and they do.

Liberty and freedom are one in the same...

You should check out democracy the God that failed, specifically chapters 1-4

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

Not really. I mean, Sparta is pretty much THE extreme when it comes to the ancient world...I was referring to European monarchies like the 12th-18th centuries anyway. I dont really see where you're drawing your conclusion from....at all. Just look at what democracy has done to justice man. The idea of justice and law as universal principles has literally disappeared, law is government issued paper that can change at any moment. Now crimes are considered crimes against the state not the individual. Which is stupid. Governments now can and do take away "rights"randomly because they can. Back in the day, the prevailing view was that all rights stood or fell together--that is, if the king decides to go around violating peoples rights illegitimately his right to his throne can be disregarded. Since democratic rulers are elected by the people they have legitimacy to basically do whatever they want, and they do.

Liberty and freedom are one in the same...

You should check out democracy the God that failed, specifically chapters 1-4

Ok, but liberties and freedoms are not the same thing. Liberties are things that the government protects (or claims to). Freedoms are things that the government simply can't stop you from doing.

In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

Not really. I mean, Sparta is pretty much THE extreme when it comes to the ancient world...I was referring to European monarchies like the 12th-18th centuries anyway. I dont really see where you're drawing your conclusion from....at all. Just look at what democracy has done to justice man. The idea of justice and law as universal principles has literally disappeared, law is government issued paper that can change at any moment. Now crimes are considered crimes against the state not the individual. Which is stupid. Governments now can and do take away "rights"randomly because they can. Back in the day, the prevailing view was that all rights stood or fell together--that is, if the king decides to go around violating peoples rights illegitimately his right to his throne can be disregarded. Since democratic rulers are elected by the people they have legitimacy to basically do whatever they want, and they do.

Liberty and freedom are one in the same...

You should check out democracy the God that failed, specifically chapters 1-4

Ok, but liberties and freedoms are not the same thing. Liberties are things that the government protects (or claims to). Freedoms are things that the government simply can't stop you from doing.

Interesting, I havent heard that before (not saying you're wrong!)

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

Not really. I mean, Sparta is pretty much THE extreme when it comes to the ancient world...I was referring to European monarchies like the 12th-18th centuries anyway. I dont really see where you're drawing your conclusion from....at all. Just look at what democracy has done to justice man. The idea of justice and law as universal principles has literally disappeared, law is government issued paper that can change at any moment. Now crimes are considered crimes against the state not the individual. Which is stupid. Governments now can and do take away "rights"randomly because they can. Back in the day, the prevailing view was that all rights stood or fell together--that is, if the king decides to go around violating peoples rights illegitimately his right to his throne can be disregarded. Since democratic rulers are elected by the people they have legitimacy to basically do whatever they want, and they do.

When was this ever true in practice?

"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

Not really. I mean, Sparta is pretty much THE extreme when it comes to the ancient world...I was referring to European monarchies like the 12th-18th centuries anyway. I dont really see where you're drawing your conclusion from....at all. Just look at what democracy has done to justice man. The idea of justice and law as universal principles has literally disappeared, law is government issued paper that can change at any moment. Now crimes are considered crimes against the state not the individual. Which is stupid. Governments now can and do take away "rights"randomly because they can. Back in the day, the prevailing view was that all rights stood or fell together--that is, if the king decides to go around violating peoples rights illegitimately his right to his throne can be disregarded. Since democratic rulers are elected by the people they have legitimacy to basically do whatever they want, and they do.

When was this ever true in practice?

Virtually always. Kings had the incentive to uphold property rights since their entire claim to the throne was based around inheritance

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

Not really. I mean, Sparta is pretty much THE extreme when it comes to the ancient world...I was referring to European monarchies like the 12th-18th centuries anyway. I dont really see where you're drawing your conclusion from....at all. Just look at what democracy has done to justice man. The idea of justice and law as universal principles has literally disappeared, law is government issued paper that can change at any moment. Now crimes are considered crimes against the state not the individual. Which is stupid. Governments now can and do take away "rights"randomly because they can. Back in the day, the prevailing view was that all rights stood or fell together--that is, if the king decides to go around violating peoples rights illegitimately his right to his throne can be disregarded. Since democratic rulers are elected by the people they have legitimacy to basically do whatever they want, and they do.

When was this ever true in practice?

Virtually always. Kings had the incentive to uphold property rights since their entire claim to the throne was based around inheritance

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not trying to be a pedantic jerk (my possessing those qualities is entirely accidental), but I'm not sure if you're saying that Kings are better than our current private property protecting legal system, etc., or whether they're just as good, or what?

"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

I know you said it in jest, but the terrifying thing is that in "real life" it IS a powerful insight. Try to say anything anti-democratic and most people jump down your throats "u suport dictat0rs lwlz!~~~". Interestingly enough we are more the slaves of the state in the age of democracy than we were in other eras.

Well the last part is obviously not true, but we certainly aren't as free as our leaders tell us we are.

Name me a monarchy that assigned its citizens numbers at birth, assassinated them, spied on them, had the right to detain them unconditionally, took nearly as much taxation as the US does, forced them to use government manufactured paper instead of gold as money, got into not one but two total wars, regulate and re-regulated every single aspect of private life, brainwashed the children at public schools, ect ect

Wanna debate it? Resolved: The United States is on balance less free under democracy than monarchy

Thank you, and that would be an awesome debate but debating 'freeness' is not a topic I feel confident with. And also I partially agree with you, for the following reasons.

For example, in Sparta the 'state' forced every man to enlist in the military from birth, and if they were deemed 'weak' as babies they were left to die. While they had freedoms to live more 'outside of the rules' than we do today, they had virtually not rights or liberties.

Essentially, in modern times we have more liberties than freedoms (so the government protects our rights but not our choices), and in the past we had more freedoms than liberties (so we could live however we wished but our lives and our well being were at the government's mercy).

Not really. I mean, Sparta is pretty much THE extreme when it comes to the ancient world...I was referring to European monarchies like the 12th-18th centuries anyway. I dont really see where you're drawing your conclusion from....at all. Just look at what democracy has done to justice man. The idea of justice and law as universal principles has literally disappeared, law is government issued paper that can change at any moment. Now crimes are considered crimes against the state not the individual. Which is stupid. Governments now can and do take away "rights"randomly because they can. Back in the day, the prevailing view was that all rights stood or fell together--that is, if the king decides to go around violating peoples rights illegitimately his right to his throne can be disregarded. Since democratic rulers are elected by the people they have legitimacy to basically do whatever they want, and they do.

When was this ever true in practice?

Virtually always. Kings had the incentive to uphold property rights since their entire claim to the throne was based around inheritance

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not trying to be a pedantic jerk (my possessing those qualities is entirely accidental), but I'm not sure if you're saying that Kings are better than our current private property protecting legal system, etc., or whether they're just as good, or what?

Monarchy is vastly superior than democracy when it comes to the protection of private property is the argument

Lol dont worry about being a pedantic jerk, I'm definitely worse ;)

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 8/24/2012 5:55:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Monarchs have rarely historically seized lands in the name of the crown?

From other monarchs and the new world sure they did. But it was considered illegitimate for a monarch to seize property at random since they were supposed to be the person ultimately in charge of justice and protection

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle